Australia develops nuclear weapons

[Teejay]

In OTL Prime Minister John Gorton gave the go-ahead for Australia to develop nuclear weapons, namely by giving the green light for the development of a nuclear reactor at Jervis Bay which would be used to make weapons grade plutonium. In OTL after John Gorton was replaced by William McMahon as Prime Minister in 1971 this project was canned.

The POD is that either that Robert Menzies around the early 1960's decides to give the go ahead for Australia to develop nuclear weapons or William McMahon decides to continue the project. If the former POD occurs Australia would have a considerable nuclear arsenal by the time Gough Whitlam becomes Prime Minister in 1972. Latter governments could restart the project secretly although, if they were willing to violate the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which South Africa did in OTL.

With Australia having a nuclear arsenal, we can expect much more defence spending than in OTL (around 3% of GDP vs 2% in OTL) and industries dependant on supplying the defence forces.

 

[Ian_W]

With Australia having a nuclear arsenal, we can expect much more defence spending than in OTL (around 3% of GDP vs 2% in OTL) and industries dependant on supplying the defence forces.

Can we ? Or do we see something similar to the 'Pentomic' shrinkage of the US military, where conventional forces are pretty much a tripwire for nukes, because what conventional capability does an Australia with nukes and the F111 to deliver them need ?

I'd also be thinking that maintaining an active nuclear infrastructure is going to chew up more than 1% of Australian GDP itself, putting rest of the Defence budget under pressure.

There is also the question whether Gough would have kept them ...

 

[Teejay]

Can we ? Or do we see something similar to the 'Pentomic' shrinkage of the US military, where conventional forces are pretty much a tripwire for nukes, because what conventional capability does an Australia with nukes and the F111 to deliver them need ?

I'd also be thinking that maintaining an active nuclear infrastructure is going to chew up more than 1% of Australian GDP itself, putting rest of the Defence budget under pressure.

I suspect a federal VAT/GST (initially co-existing with similar state sales and wholesale taxes) would have been introduced sooner than in OTL in order to fund higher defence spending.

In the longer term, the VAT/GST would be increased in order to replace those said state taxes or the state governments introduce their own VAT/GST taxes along with the federal VAT/GST. We could expect the maximum average rate of VAT/GST to an average of 20% (which is the average level in the European union).

I have to look up what it costs Israel to maintain it's nuclear infrastructure, I can't imagine that the costs would be 1% of GDP, which would mean like currently $20 billion annually.

There is also the question whether Gough would have kept them ...

I don't know about the answer to that question, there could be strong opposition from the Liberal Party which could become quite pro nuclear weapons in OTL as a means of defence against the Communists. Wither or not to have nuclear weapons could become a hot button issue in Australian politics.

Also many Australians could be of the opinion Australia possessing a nuclear arsenal as a good thing and feels it makes Australia more important in world.

 

[Ian_W]

I have to look up what it costs Israel to maintain it's nuclear infrastructure, I can't imagine that the costs would be 1% of GDP, which would mean like currently $20 billion annually.



I don't know about the answer to that question, there could be strong opposition from the Liberal Party which could become quite pro nuclear weapons in OTL as a means of defence against the Communists.

2011 numbers puts Israeli GDP at $261b and their nuclear program at $1.9b.

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion-of-public-resources/

Thats pretty close to 1%.

If you're going to be aiming the Australian nukes at communists, then to get to China let alone Russia, you'll also need either something longer range than the F111, which will add costs, or forward basing in Malaysia or somewhere, which will also add costs.

 

[Teejay]

2011 numbers puts Israeli GDP at $261b and their nuclear program at $1.9b.

http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion-of-public-resources/

Thats pretty close to 1%.

If you're going to be aiming the Australian nukes at communists, then to get to China let alone Russia, you'll also need either something longer range than the F111, which will add costs, or forward basing in Malaysia or somewhere, which will also add costs.

Thanks for the information.

I added a possible way that the higher defence spending would be funded, namely the introduction of a Federal VAT or GST. In this TL we could see a combined state and federal VAT (the states would have followed in introducing their own VAT's) to a maximum average of between 20-25% (Ireland's maximum rate is currently 23%).

Also with a higher rate of defence spending, there is going to be industries dependant on contracts from the military and would form a substantial lobby.

 

[Catsmate]

The Defense Committee recommended the acquisition of tactical nuclear weapons in 1956, from the UK or based on UK technology. The attempts by Menzies to access UK technology during the Hurricane tests failed. It shouldn't be that difficult to alter circumstances so that Australia (the Macmillan visit in '58 and the meetings organised by Scherger regarding cooperation with UK and US air forces) builds a reactor in the late '50s to breed plutonium, plus the ancillary facilities such as polonium production, initiator fabrication, tritium production and plutonium extraction. However would be a very significant investment, requiring either an increase in defense spending or a reduction in other areas. Perhaps the situation wrt Indonesia deteriorates earlier and more quickly?

By 1962 the situation was such that Plan Addington included options for British strikes with tactical nuclear weapons (then stored at RAF Tengah in Singapore) against Indonesia in addition to 'heavy' conventional bombardment. It was envisaged that RAAF Darwin would be the key base for British bombers, which in turn led to the realisation that Darwin would be a target for Indonesian air attacks if hostilities broke out.
This in turn pressed the deployment of Bloodhound SAMs and the realisation that RAAF Sabres were fairly useless against Indonesian Tu-16's (which were intruding into Australian airspace with impunity).
For example on 07SEP1964 the RAAF deployed sixteen CAC Sabres with Sidewinder AIMs to Darwin.

 

[Ak-84]

Frankly,the POD of the sixties is already too late. By which time most of the (pretty major) Aussie contributers to the Manhattan project and Tube Alloys were retired or dead.
ANd with the NPT in the works, and the first major restrictions on tech transfer makes it unfeasible for Australia.

A better POD is 1946, Australia decides to develop a deterrant indepenant of but complementary to the UK. At that time mostif the expertise is still around ( Mark Oliphant and Ernets Titterson were in Asutralia by the late 1940's).

ETA: Also add Eric Burhop and Massie

 

[Ian_W]

Thanks for the information.

I added a possible way that the higher defence spending would be funded, namely the introduction of a Federal VAT or GST. With a higher rate of defence spending, there is going to be industries dependant on contracts from the military and would form a substantial lobby.

There is also an Australia-specific problem.

Building your own nukes means you need nuclear power plants to support them, and there are very few places in Australia's inhabited areas that have enough fresh water to provide enough cooling to support a decent sized nuclear plant.

As well, one plant probably won't give you enough plutonium.

Therefore, Catsmate's plan of 'Borrow them off the British' probably works better (and I'd be very surprised if discussions didnt happen in OTL regarding American nukes on Australian F111s).

 

[Teejay]

Frankly,the POD of the sixties is already too late. By which time most of the (pretty major) Aussie contributers to the Manhattan project and Tube Alloys were retired or dead.
ANd with the NPT in the works, and the first major restrictions on tech transfer makes it unfeasible for Australia.

A better POD is 1946, Australia decides to develop a deterrant indepenant of but complementary to the UK. At that time mostif the expertise is still around ( Mark Oliphant and Ernets Titterson were in Asutralia by the late 1940's).

I could totally see the Chifley government thinking that Australia developing the atomic bomb was a good idea and initiating such a project.

 

[Teejay]

There is also an Australia-specific problem.

Building your own nukes means you need nuclear power plants to support them, and there are very few places in Australia's inhabited areas that have enough fresh water to provide enough cooling to support a decent sized nuclear plant.

As well, one plant probably won't give you enough plutonium.

Therefore, Catsmate's plan of 'Borrow them off the British' probably works better (and I'd be very surprised if discussions didnt happen in OTL regarding American nukes on Australian F111s).

Israel has no nuclear power plants, it just has just two research reactors. They managed to create an arsenal between 75 and 400 warheads.

Australia in this TL has Lucas Heights (which is a research reactor) and the Jervis Bay Nuclear Power Plant. I can't see why Australia could not produce a nuclear arsenal of the level Israel has.

 

[Ak-84]

Australian phyiscists, like Oliphant, Burhop etc, were instrumental in uranium enrichment work for the Manhattan project. A post 1946 POD makes this feasible. A uranium based initial bomb. Followed perhaps by a plutonium based one once the US lifts nuclear restrictions in the 1950's.

 

[Ian_W]

I could totally see the Chifley government thinking that Australia developing the atomic bomb was a good idea and initiating such a project.

This might be of interest.

https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull28-1/28103595864.pdf

Note that much of it is happening while Doc Evatt is the President of the UN.

The best path is probably Clem Attlee inviting Chifley to be formally part of the UK nuclear program.

 

[Ak-84]

The British nuclear programme was almost a commonwealth nuclear programme, in OTL it had (lots) of Aussies, Kiwis, Saffers, Indians, Pakistani............note the last three all made nukes OTL.

So, it could be done.

 

[Spens1]

We'd get revenge on the emu's?

Seriously they'd never get any use most likely. The only thing i can think of now is that they'd be a deterrant against north korea.

 

[Teejay]

We'd get revenge on the emu's?

Seriously they'd never get any use most likely. The only thing i can think of now is that they'd be a deterrant against north korea.

I agree, however Australia possessing a nuclear arsenal is going to be seen as a prestige thing by many Australians.

One can never underestimate I believe an over-inflated sense of importance many Australians believe they have in the world. That comes with being a nation that covers an entire continent, yet we are only a middle ranked power being a G-20 rather than G-7 member.

 

[Spens1]

I agree, however Australia possessing a nuclear arsenal is going to be seen as a prestige thing by many Australians.

One can never underestimate I believe an over-inflated sense of importance many Australians believe they have in the world. That comes with being a nation that covers an entire continent, yet we are only a middle ranked power being a G-20 rather than G-7 member.

A lot of that also has to do with our size surely. We only have 25 million people.

 

[Teejay]

A lot of that also has to do with our size surely. We only have 25 million people.

However we are as powerful or even more powerful than nations with many times our population. If New Zealand had joined the Commonwealth in 1901 Australia would have now have nearly 30 million people and might have entered the G-8 (which the G-7 would be called). Canada has 35 million people and it is a G-7 member.

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

I wonder if Australia possessed a couple nukes during the Vietnam War I wonder how things would change in Southeast Asia especially knowing the a nation next door armed with some nukes.

 

[ar-pharazon]

I could see this being especially useful if there was no sino Soviet split.

Assuming ww3 means the western powers would be facing off against the Chinese and Soviets-it would probably be a good strategic decision to allow Australia to develop a nuclear arsenal to cover the southeast and pacific flank.

 

[LouisTheGreyFox]

I could see this being especially useful if there was no sino Soviet split.

Assuming ww3 means the western powers would be facing off against the Chinese and Soviets-it would probably be a good strategic decision to allow Australia to develop a nuclear arsenal to cover the southeast and pacific flank.

Honestly the way I see this is that if Australia had created a handful of nuclear weapons then surely more Australian cities would be nuked by Chinese and Soviets if a World War III ever happened. I mean in 1983: Doomsday, Australia only lost it's cities of Sydney, Perth and Melbourne from Soviet nukes during Doomsday, but were lucky since their capital of Canberra was spared from destruction.

So had Australia already had nuclear weapons by 1983, I think more cities like Adelaide, Darwin, Townsville, Cairns, Brisbane, Gold Coast, and Canberra would be destroyed in WW3.